Assessment Report Standard Format
July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008
PROGRAM(S) ASSESSED: GE Area IV-Human Expression
ASSESSMENT COORDINATOR: Randall S. Paul, Department of Music
YEAR Two of a Three YEAR CYCLE
1. ASSESSMENT MEASURES EMPLOYED
Briefly describe the assessment measures employed during the
year.
 What was done?
a. Analysis of essays, essay questions on exams, and marker
questions on exams that constitute performance criteria as it relates
to the GE Learning Outcomes.
b. Distribution and analysis of the GE Student Learning Outcomes
Evaluation Forms.
c. All measures were in compliance with sections 2 thru 4 of the GE
Assessment Plan for Area IV.

Who participated in the process?
Selected sections of MUS 214, ART 214, MUS 290, and TH214

What challenges (if any) were encountered?
a. A need for uniformity of syllabi, test questions, writing assignments,
and faculty.
b. A need for coordination of disparate faculty schedules and
teaching assignments.
c. A need for improved communication of assessment procedures.
d. A need for a named coordinator for each area to oversee progress.
e. A need for a centralized location for storage of sample materials to
aid faculty. These may include but not limited to: syllabi, marker
test questions, writing assignment topics, discussion essays, writing
portfolios, essay grading rubric, and proven effective teaching
strategies. (See area 5 in GE Assessment Plan concerning an Area
IV website.)
2. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
List the objectives and outcomes assessed during the year, and
briefly describe the findings for each.
a. In order to assess the overarching GE Learning Outcomes for Area
IV, the area Assessment Plan articulates specific “performance
criteria” that fall into two categories. The first is objectives that are
more effective for marker questions on exams. The second is
objectives that are more in depth and are used for writing
assignments. As stated in section 4 of the area Assessment Plan,
the second year of assessment concentrates on marker questions
and sample essay questions. These assessment tools focus on
“direct measures” of student achievement. Each year there will
also be an “indirect measure” of student achievement that uses the
GE Student Learning Outcomes Evaluation Form.
b. In the area of marker questions, several classes were selected at
random and results gathered from final exams in which marker
questions were used. Students scored above 70% on these
questions.
c. In the area of essay questions and writing assignments, random
examples were selected from several classes and compared with
the evaluation rubric stated in the Preliminary Report for Area IV.
This rubric was developed for evaluating writing portfolios, but
worked well to provide unbiased feedback for smaller writing
assignments and was additionally helpful since the third year
evaluation will require such evaluation tools. Of the 25 randomly
selected writing examples, only 2 fell into the category of “not
passing. This high percentage is probably due to the fact that
students are allowed to re-submit essays if they are not effective.
The rubric is given at the end of this document.
d. In the area of indirect measures using the Evaluation Form, over
700 students were questioned and no areas were found decreasing
when compared to last year’s figures. The average score was a
3.2 and five questions were found to improve by a small margin of
+.1. When compared with all other GE classes questioned, Area IV
was on par in every area, being within .1 of the All GE Mean.
3. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
List planned or actual changes (if any) to curriculum, teaching
methods, facilities, or services that are in response to the
assessment findings.
The assessment results were encouraging and other than the creation
of an Area IV website and attention to the challenges described in
section 1 above, no changes are planned.
4. ASSESSMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE
Explain deviations from the plan (if any).
Although this is year two of a three year cycle, steps have already
been taken to plan for the 2009 evaluation that includes writing
portfolios. Discussions have been ongoing to refine the grading rubric
and to gather a more representative sample of writing and marker
questions.
5. NEW ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENTS
Describe developments (if any) regarding assessment measures,
communication, faculty or staff involvement, benchmarking, or other
assessment variables.
None at this time.
DRAFT Area Four Portfolio Rubric DRAFT
for evaluating writing in WI classes
Recognize and critically discuss important works
Exhibits understanding of work in question
Shows ability to evaluate work critically
Presents a reasonable discussion of work's formal features
Thoughtfully evaluates work's place in history or canon
Understand and discuss "complex blend" of factors
Successfully discusses artist/writer's personal vision in work
Successfully discusses place of socio-cultural background in work
Successfully discusses role of ethical values in work
Successfully discusses place of esthetic judgment in work
Shows understanding of blend of factors in each work
Discuss the diverse means of communication
Understands the language of the work
Critically discusses the work's language
Demonstrates ability to relate work's language to meaning
Overall Writing Evaluation
Writing is focused
Writing is organized
Writing demonstrates ability to think critically
Writing shows ability to cite aspects of work to support argument
Writing is correct: Diction, mechanics, grammar, spelling
Overall Average
3 = better than passing
2 = passing
1 = borderline
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
0 = not passing